Here’s what Trump’s decision means for the Dakota Access Pipeline; new wave of protests after Trump signs executive action

From Grist


This story was originally published by High Country News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the pipeline industry have been locked in bitter dispute over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The 1,172-mile pipeline is nearly finished, except for a section that would cross under Lake Oahe, which the tribe relies on for water. But this week, they were on the same page: They agree Trump’s executive actions will likely lead to authorizations first for the Dakota Access Pipeline and then other big projects.

On Tuesday, the president signed a memorandum instructing the U.S. Army and the Army Corps of Engineers to “review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate, requests for approvals to construct and operate (the Dakota Access Pipeline).” It also directs the Army to “consider, to the extent permitted by law,” whether to rescind the Obama administration memorandum that stalled construction last month. Following that memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the agency on Jan. 18 issued its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and asked for public comment due Feb. 20 before deciding whether to allow an easement needed to complete construction. The Trump memorandum also asked the Army to consider dropping that environmental impact statement.

Trump’s presidential memorandum on the Dakota Access Pipeline is full of legal language and doesn’t directly order the permit necessary for the pipeline to be completed. Still both sides concede that it paves the way for the pipeline to go ahead, probably more effectively than a direct order would have.

Industry representatives say the muted language will make it harder for successful legal challenges once the Army approves the pipeline. The president also signed another memorandum in support of reviving the Keystone XL pipeline to bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, and an executive order mandating that environmental reviews of infrastructure be expedited. “They did it for strategic reasons,” says John Stoody, a vice president of the Association of Oil Pipelines. “While the memorandums look vaguer on the surface (than directly ordering an easement), they’re actually stronger legally and have a better chance in resulting in a positive outcome.” Industry officials heralded Trump’s actions as an early indication that a new era of job-creating infrastructure projects has dawned.

The Standing Rock Sioux’s chief lawyer, Jan Hasselman, says under a straightforward reading of Trump’s Dakota Access Pipeline memorandum, the Corps should still go forward with the full environmental impact statement and additional consultation with the tribe as ordered by the Army. That would take many months. “Do I think that’s what’s going to happen? No,” Hasselman, an attorney for Earthjustice, conceded.

One strong point in Trump’s favor, industry officials say, is that even the Obama administration argued that the Army had been on sound legal footing when it initially conducted a streamlined environmental review instead of the full study it’s now planning. “The last administration itself admitted it comported with the law,” Stoody says.

Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy made this point when announcing the decision to stall the pipeline to conduct an environmental impact statement and further consult with the tribe. “I want to be clear that this decision does not alter the Army’s decision that the Corps’ prior reviews and actions comported with legal requirements,” Darcy wrote in a memorandum Dec. 4. “Rather, my decision acknowledges and addresses that a more robust analysis of alternatives can and should be done under these circumstances, before an easement is granted for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross the Missouri River on Corps land.”

If, as expected, the Corps approves the easement, the tribe intends to challenge it in court. Hasselman underscored that Trump’s memorandum doesn’t mention the tribe, its treaty rights, or its concerns about water quality. “This is another action in a long history of sidestepping treaty rights and trampling on the rights of indigenous people,” he said. “If this is how the Trump administration is going to be approaching issues in Indian country, it’s going to be a long four years.”

Dave Archambault II, chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told reporters that he had repeatedly tried to speak with the Trump administration but was rebuffed.

The tribe got the attention of the Obama administration last year after thousands of protesters gathered in and near the reservation to protest the pipeline plans. Now, the tribe has asked demonstrators to leave by Feb. 18, because of concerns for their health and welfare. “We’re asking that the camp be cleared. We’re asking that people don’t come,” Archambault said during a conference call Wednesday with reporters. “The fight is now in D.C.”

Archambault called on the public to stand up and for civil servants to resist the Trump administration, warning that many more attacks on the environment and people’s rights are on the way. “Now we have to go and make noise where we can be heard.”

http://grist.org/article/heres-what-trumps-decision-means-for-the-dakota-access-pipeline/

From Lakota People’s Law Project Report
January 27, 2017

President Donald Trump has given the green light to streamline construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock reservation in North Dakota. His decision is not surprising given that his cabinet picks are full of pro-oil candidates like Exxon Mobil executive Rex Tillerson and former Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The pipeline construction in its current proposition has been found to understate the risks posed by landslides and amount of safety construction to contain spills. Such spills are most likely going to poison groundwater that the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe needs to sustain itself. If the pipeline construction is complete, Standing Rock could be the next Flint, where residents have to use bottled water for daily use.

This executive action overturns all the work water protectors have made recently under the Obama administration, and which is unfortunate because the Standing Rock Sioux tribe formally asked the encampments to disperse on Friday, January 20th according to Reuters. While Archambault stated that the fight is now in the courts, the tribe needs support and solidarity now more than ever.

This unfortunate turn of events overshadows the recent victory of the water protectors in the North Dakota Supreme Court, which allowed for out-of-state lawyers to represent the over 600 protesters that have been arrested so far . With arrests still ongoing, this number is likely to rise.

President Trump’s actions have not fallen on deaf ears, however. Various representatives of environmental groups and civil rights groups, including the ACLU and the Sierra Club, have all voiced their opposition to this revival of pipeline construction.

Activists like Chase Iron Eyes, Lead Attorney for the Lakota People’s Law Project, have been especially active in standing against these actions. On Facebook posted:

Fighters, brothers and sisters. Come. Heed the call to defend this country against all enemies, foreign & domestic. We shall find out who loves this land, who is loyal to the water and who is a traitor to this land, to our water.”

Protests have also occurred in New York outside of Trump Tower and Trump International Hotel—attendance numbering in the hundreds—to show the President that these actions will not go on without consequence.

As the situation intensifies, people are again diverting their attention to the confrontation in Standing Rock. Chairman of the United Nations (UN) Working Group on the issue of Human Rights, Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, Pavel Sulyandziga, and Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, member of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, have both arrived in North Dakota. These two gentlemen will be joined by representatives of the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) as well as the ACLU Human Rights Program who participated in a human rights training workshop on Sunday January 22nd.

The water protectors still have a long battle ahead of them. In addition to the frigid weather, the state of North Dakota has introduced bills that make it illegal to wear masks at protests and for people to join the resistance camps  under threat of being fined $5,000 dollars.  Oh but what the North Dakota assembly attempted to make legal, by way of a bill introduction, is the “unintentional” mowing down of protesters being fast moving vehicles.

If these actions are not enough to make you cringe, the Trump administration denied a request by Dave Archambault II to engage in dialogue about moving forward with the oil pipeline. If the President is not even willing to hear both sides of the issue he is essentially declaring what side he stands for.

The fight to protect the water rights and the livelihoods of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is far from over. We must remain vigilant in this crucial time and do everything we can to stand in solidarity with those who have vowed to protect the land, tribal sovereignty, and clean water.

Please add your comment to the Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement at lakotalaw.org.dapl-action before the filing period ends on Feb. 20.

http://ourchildrenaresacred.org/new-wave-of-protests-after-trump-signs-executive-action-for-dapl-completion/

Foreign Ministry statement on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Donbass — Jan. 31, 2017

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

31 January 2017

The situation in Donbass has deteriorated sharply in recent days. Ukrainian troops continue to conduct offensive operations to seize positions held by self-defence forces, including in the suburbs of Donetsk. Heavy weapons, including heavy artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, are being actively used to shell residential areas. According to Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, such weapons should long since have been withdrawn from the contact line. There are casualties and wounded among the civilian population. As a result of the shelling by Ukrainian troops, the Donetsk Filtration Station and the Avdeyevka Coke Chemical Plant have lost power. The lives of miners working in the mines are under threat.

We see southeastern Ukraine, which is already suffering from the economic blockade imposed by Kiev, again on the verge of a real humanitarian and environmental disaster.

All of this is a direct outcome of ongoing violations by Ukraine of its obligations under the Minsk agreements, which no one in Kiev intends to act on. Instead of efforts to achieve sustainable peace, the Ukrainian authorities are trying hard to achieve a military solution to the conflict. Everyone should remember what kind of outcome this kind of reckless behaviour has led to on previous occasions.

Strangely enough, every escalation of the situation in Donbass comes at a time when the Ukrainian leadership is away on a foreign trip. Clearly, this is an attempt to keep the crisis provoked by Kiev on the international agenda.

We urge the Ukrainian authorities to immediately put an end to the armed provocations in Donbass, comply with existing ceasefire agreements and begin, at long last, to responsibly fulfil all the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures, including those relating to the political aspects of the existing problems.

We expect Ukraine’s partners to exert the necessary influence on Kiev to put an end to these efforts to turn the tables in Donbass and sink the Minsk agreements.

We expect a quick response on the part of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine in order to de-escalate the situation as soon as possible.

http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2618179

‘Maniac orders:’ Senior Russian MP blasts US program to estimate nuclear attack outcome

“…witness a sick and dangerous hobby that is targeting world peace and the security of mankind as a whole.”

–MP Irina Yarovaya, Deputy speaker of the Russian State Duma

From RT

January 30, 2017

‘Maniac orders:’ Senior Russian MP blasts US program to estimate nuclear attack outcome
The deputy speaker of the Russian State Duma says the US Congress is “transfixed on war and destruction,” after it issued an order to evaluate the ‘survivability’ of Russian and Chinese leaders in the event of a nuclear exchange.

This is a maniac order, made by people who are obsessed with the ideas of war and destruction and who want to find satisfaction in the description of possible casualties,” MP Irina Yarovaya of the United Russia party told reporters on Monday.

The Congress’ ideas look like ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street.’” she added.

The comment comes after media reported that the US Congress had directed the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to evaluate the ‘survivability’ of Russian and Chinese leaders in the event of a nuclear exchange. Experts must now evaluate whether various senior political and military leaders of each country could survive a nuclear attack and continue operating afterwards.

Although the study was ordered before US President Donald Trump took office, news about it was released after the new president announced that Washington “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

Instead of fighting terrorism, the US Congress is entertaining itself with hope to ‘play’ with nuclear weapons. We can witness a sick and dangerous hobby that is targeting world peace and the security of mankind as a whole,” MP Yarovaya told reporters.

In late 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin admitted the possibility of a new arms race between Russia and the United States, blaming it on former US President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

The Russian leader explained that as the Bush administration withdrew from the ABMT in 2002, the treaty was terminated, and Russia responded by taking measures to ensure that the US’ antimissile shield would not be effective against Russian missiles.

Putin also said, however, that the modernization of Russia’s military was completely within the framework of international agreements, including the New START. The president added that, even if Russia is drawn into an arms race, it won’t spend more than it can afford, saying “we are fine with the situation and fulfill all our [military modernization] plans.”

https://www.rt.com/politics/375637-maniac-orders-senior-russian-mp/

Banning people is wrong, but killing them is even worse; “What’s refusing a visa to a Libyan compared to bombing him?”; immigration is forced by U.S./EU rampages

In their anti-Trump crusade, some ‘progressives’ appear perfectly happy to link arms and sing ‘Kumbaya’ with the serial warmongers who unleashed the carnage which caused the refugee crisis in the first place.

The Nuremberg judgment of 1946 rightly held that to initiate a war of aggression was the “supreme international crime,” but that seems to have been forgotten today.

From RT

By Neil Clark
February 1, 2017

Banning people is wrong, but killing them is even worse
Which is more morally reprehensible: (1) Introducing a ban on refugees and immigrants from a small number of countries for a temporary period or (2) Killing people and destroying their countries through illegal regime change wars?

A bit of a no-brainer, eh? It has to be the second answer, surely.

Well, you’d think so, but for some it seems, the first option is far worse than the latter.

How else to explain that large sections of the Western liberal-left seem to be more incensed by Donald Trump’s ban on visitors from some Muslim countries (unjust though it is) than they were by the war which destroyed Libya, a country that had the highest living standards in Africa.

In their anti-Trump crusade, some ‘progressives’ appear perfectly happy to link arms and sing ‘Kumbaya’ with the serial warmongers who unleashed the carnage which caused the refugee crisis in the first place?

Placing visa restrictions on certain Muslim majority countries seems to have caused a greater moral outrage than bombing them.

Trump’s executive order has caused a furious liberal backlash which Obama’s backing of jihadist death squads in Syria never did. It has led to widespread protests in the US and UK. Over 1.7 million people have signed a petition calling for the State visit of the American president to the UK to be called off. In the House of Commons on Monday, Trump was called a fascist and likened to Hitler and Mussolini, while outside Downing Street angry demonstrators shouted ‘Donald Trump has got to go!’ Parliamentary sketch writer Quentin Letts said the eyes of politician Yvette Cooper were “bulging so much she could have gone to a fancy dress party as Marty Feldman.”

“If the Olympic Games ever goes in for synchronized crossness, we’ll be dead certs for a medal position,” Letts observed.

If you can’t remember this level of ‘synchronized crossness’ during Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya, then it’s not surprising. Similar protests did not occur. There was no talk of a Hollywood strike. Yvette Cooper’s eyes did not bulge; she supported the refugee-making bombing of Libya as she did the refugee-making Iraq war.

You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to acknowledge that ‘Barack O’Bomber’ and his predecessors in the White House have got off very lightly. Deportations? The ‘liberal’ Obama deported more than 2.5 million undocumented migrants between 2009-2015 and a record 438,421 people in 2013.

To the best of my knowledge, Owen Jones organized no protests.

Trump’s executive order didn’t just appear out of thin air, the list of ‘countries of concern’ was, as Seth Frantzman has pointed out, already compiled by the Obama administration. “The media should also be truthful with the public and instead of claiming Trump singled out seven countries, it should note that the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries,” Frantzan says.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end there.

We’ve heard a lot these last few days about how Trump’s ban is an “assault on American values” (Obama himself has said ‘American values’ are at stake) conjuring up an image of the pre-Trump USA whose doors were opened wide for migrants and refugees from all over the world.

The truth is that for a long time it’s been pretty tough to get into the US if you’re in possession of the ‘wrong’ kind of passport, and sometimes even if you have the ‘right’ one.

“Americans seem to think it’s alright to subject everyone else to the pointless rigmarole of passing through their Homeland Security but when they travel they expect to be allowed through other countries’ immigration without fuss,” writes Peter Hill in the Daily Express.

We all know someone who’s been turned back at US immigration as they failed one entry requirement or another, and has been sent straight back home on the next flight. The son of Hungarian friends of ours always dreamed of going to the US, and hoped to work there, but he was turned back on arrival as the authorities didn’t believe he had enough money to support himself.

Fair enough, it’s the US authorities’ call; America is a sovereign country, and they set their own rules of entry. This tough approach at the borders didn’t just start on Friday when Dr. Evil aka Donald Trump formally became president.

That said, there are legitimate grounds to object to what the new president has ordered.

Even though he wasn’t responsible for the regime change wars which caused the migrant crisis, and has promised a less meddlesome foreign policy, Trump should at least acknowledge that the US has a moral obligation to take in refugees from countries that the US, under previous administrations, has set out to destabilize.

We can also question why some countries are affected by the temporary ban, and others not. If national security is the issue, why wasn’t Saudi Arabia, the home country of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, on the list? I’m not suggesting Saudi nationals should be banned from the US, only pointing out the omission.

Many of those sanctimoniously moralizing about Trump’s abusive & hateful policies TODAY were alright with humanitarian bombs YESTERDAY https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/825828947527102464 

But unfair as it undoubtedly is, the reaction to Trump’s executive order has been overblown, if we compare it to the non-reaction to far worse things US governments have done. As Bertolt Brecht might have said if he was still around: What’s refusing a visa to a Libyan, compared to bombing him? The Nuremberg judgment of 1946 rightly held that to initiate a war of aggression was the “supreme international crime,” but that seems to have been forgotten today.

Prioritising free movement over the right to life is the height of white privilege. https://twitter.com/NeilClark66/status/825828947527102464 

Such is the ‘Sorosification‘ of the Western liberal-left that to impose controls on immigration is now regarded as a more heinous crime than launching brutal, imperialist wars of aggression, which are a prime cause of the significant level of migration from the Middle East. At the same time, the people who create and propagandize for destructive wars for economic gain against countries of the global south, are regarded as less reprehensible than those who advocate visa restrictions, especially if they come out and condemn visa restrictions.

Liberals, for instance, fawned over the former Secretary of State Madeline Albright when she said she “stands ready” to “register as Muslim” in “solidarity” against Trump. The very same Madeline Albright once declared that the death of half a million (predominantly Muslim) children in Iraq due to sanctions was a price that was “worth it.”

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8&#8243; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

Will Albright be met with large-scale protests next time she comes to the UK for defending infanticide in Iraq? Don’t hold your breath. She’s against ‘The Donald’ so must be a good ‘un.

Serial warmonger John McCain has also come out to blast Trump’s executive order. He’s the man who, when asked what he was going to do about Iran if elected president, sang “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” to the Beach Boys tune Barbara Ann.

How many Muslims would have been killed if McCain had bombed Iran? But hey, he opposes Trump’s visa ban, so he must be a pretty cool dude. Let’s invite the wannabe bomber of Teheran on the next ’Solidarity with Muslims’ protest, shall we?

In 2015, a report called Body Count, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, revealed that at least 1.3 million people had lost their lives in the US-led ‘war on terror’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.’ As I wrote at the time: As awful as that sounds, the total of 1.3 million deaths does not take into account casualties in other war zones, such as Yemen – and the authors stress that the figure is a “conservative estimate.”

The vast majority of these deaths will have been Muslims. What a pity their deaths, and the deaths of countless others in US-led regime change ops and “liberal interventions,” did not lead to the same level of ‘synchronized crossness’ that Trump’s executive order has.

Follow Neil Clark on Twitter

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/375894-banning-people-regime-change-muslims/

U.S. military spending vs. the world — 2015

Another chart to print and distribute widely.

From National Priorities

The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.

U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined.

U.S. military spending dwarfs the budget of the #2 country – China. For every dollar China spends on its military, the U.S. spends $2.77.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/

Where U.S. money goes — to war fighting

54% in 2015, not including veteran benefits. That brings the total to 60%.

From Beyond Nuclear

You may have seen this pie chart before. This shows how discretionary spending was allocated in Fiscal Year 2015. It never ceases to shock and appall. Every year, our Congress sets funding levels during the appropriations process. And every year, they slice off more than half the pie for military spending.
These are our tax dollars. But how many people really know how their money is spent? Please help spread the word. Download the chart from the National Priorities Project and distribute it widely. 

No matter which issue is closest to your heart, it is hampered by this excessive spending on war-fighting instead of support for our struggling social services.
We must let our Congressional leaders know that we will not re-elect them if they continue to spend our tax dollars on war fighting! We have just under two years to get this message across before mid-term elections.


Human, civil and environmental rights are under siege in this country right now. They won’t be fixed unless funding is redirected from human destruction to human needs.
At Beyond Nuclear our focus is on eliminating spending on nuclear power and nuclear weapons. But as we can see in this chart, everything is connected. Drastically reducing military spending will raise all our boats…

Water source destroyed by terrorists in Damascus ‘resumes its work’; Israeli weapons discovered at site (VIDEO)

From Sputnik News

February 1, 2017

Syrian Minister of Water Resources Nabil al Hasan spoke to Sputnik about the condition of the water source called Ain el Fijeh in Damascus, which provided many people with water and later on was hit by the terrorists.

“After a full examination of the source we came to a conclusion that 85% of the buildings above the source such as the water pumping station, equipment and power grids are all damaged. The terrorists blew it up in three different places so the source Harush is completely destroyed now,” Hasan said.The minister further said that the water was allowed to flow through the river channel until the water supply resumed its work.

Later on, about 10 hours after the initiation of the repair, the pumps started pumping water into the water storage of Damascus.

The water samples were then taken for quality analysis. After the results come back, it will be decided whether to supply the water to the residents.

The liberation of the water source from the terrorists was a welcome event for millions of people in Damascus. A soldier from the Syrian Army Firas Hariri told Sputnik about how liberation of the water complex Ain el Fijeh took place.

“The battle took place at night. The snipers were shooting at us from every side possible,” Hariri said.

“From January 1 to 23 about 50 soldiers, including myself, took a position in the house opposite the source. The distance between us and the source did not exceed 100 meters. The militants using megaphones, constantly threatened us, saying that they will destroy the entire station,” the soldier said.

According to him the Syrian soldiers started the operation from the mountains. They used an infrared camera to determine the militants’ positions.

“We went for the terrorists from both the sides: by rail and along the buildings. We managed to divert their attention and destroy their united front,” Hariri said.

The terrorists tried to mine the water source to blow it up completely but the soldiers firmly occupied the station and courageously guarded it.

After winning the battle, the soldiers found a lot of weapons such as sniper rifles and bombs, made in Israel in the terrorists’ weapon arsenals.

In December 2016, militants from Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham, formerly known as the al-Nusra Front, blew up a water pipeline in the Wadi Barada area and seized the only source of drinking water for Damascus citizens.

In January 2017, the Syrian army fully liberated the Wadi Barada area near the Syrian capital of Damascus, where the main water source is located, from militants.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201702011050252148-water-source-damascus-resumes-work/

Russian military denies shooting at Ukrainian transport plane in Black Sea

U.S. and NATO ships for joint naval drills in the Black Sea. NATO war “games” with thousands of U.S./NATO soldiers and equipment in bordering countries. Provocations by Kiev. Dangerous situation.

From Sputnik News

February 1, 2017

The Russian Black Sea Fleet categorically denied claims by Kiev that a Ukrainian military transport plane came under fire from Russian drilling platforms in the Black Sea on Wednesday.

SEVASTOPOL (Sputnik) — The Ukrainian Defense Ministry said earlier on Wednesday that a Ukrainian An-26 transport plane came under small arms fire from two Russian drilling platforms while flying near the Odessa gas field in the Black Sea.”All Ukrainian claims of the alleged shooting at the An-26 plane are absolute lies,” an official from the lack Sea Fleet’s headquarters said in a statement.

According to the statement, the Ukrainian An-26 military plane carried out on Wednesday afternoon two provocative approaches at extremely low altitude to Russia’s Tavrida and Crimea-2 drilling platforms.

“During the plane’s second approach, a security guard at one of the platforms fired four signal flares to prevent a possible collision of the plane with the platform’s mast,” the official stressed.

The news comes amid the joint naval drills of the seven North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states with the Ukrainian Naval Forces in the Black Sea, which started on Wednesday.

Moreover, the situation near the industrial town of Avdiivka and neighboring Yasynuvata has been tense for several days, with civilians being deprived of running water, central heating and electricity. The Ukrainian forces and Donbass militia are accusing each other of being responsible for escalation of fighting.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201702011050248710-russia-ukraine-plane-sea/

Ukrainian blogger says Poroshenko-Akhmetov feud behind Donbass bloodbath

February 1, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
RusVesna – translated by J. Arnoldski –
The escalation of the conflict in Donbass is the result of a conflict between Ukrainian President Poroshenko and oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, famous Ukrainian blogger Kirill Tyutyunnik suggests.
Tyutyunnik explained: 
Here’s a little insider information. People sometimes forget about what country and world we live in. Now I’ll tell you the essence of what is happening in Avdeevka. Everything is so banal and cynical that when you understand that they’re going [on an offensive] for the sake of money and power, it becomes very, very sick. 
 
Poroshenko rolled out a bill to Akhmetov in the amount of $200,000,000 as taxes to be paid, or for a kickback – how you prefer. To the question of “I’m sorry, but what is this for? I’ve already given everything normally,” [the] Avdeevka [situation] followed and Akhmetov’s Avdeevka Coke Plant is left without power.
 
People are talking about Putin and his attack. Volunteers are gathering aid. But Akhmetov and Poroshenko will come to a deal, and the shelling will cease.
 

 

Do you catch the essence of this blackmail? If you don’t want to pay for the security of your business, then you’ll take [human] losses for which attacks and the destruction can safely be blamed on the LPR and DPR terrorists and so on…

Eduard Popov Donbass sitrep: Ukrainian losses “colossal,” shelling worse than 2014 level

February 1, 2017 –
By Eduard Popov for Fort Russ – translated by J. Arnoldski –
On the morning of January 31st, I gave an interview to Radio Sputnik (part of which was later published by RIA Novosti under the title “Poroshenko uses the old tactic of ‘shedding tears'”) in which I expressed the following thought: Poroshenko probably went to Germany to talk with Merkel without a real agenda. Hence why he simply broke off the meeting and went back to Ukraine. The reason? If the UAF offensive from Avdeevka on Donetsk went successfully, then he would probably explain from Germany that this is the self-activism of patriots whom he doesn’t control. “I didn’t violate the Minsk Agreements, this was an initiative of patriot volunteers,” he would say.
But Poroshenko interrupted the visit and returned to Ukraine to prevent a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Avdeevka. The reason is simple: things did not go according to Poroshenko and the Ukrainian General Staff’s plan. Thus, Poroshenko changed out the warrior’s sword for the mantle of peacemaker. He will play the role of the victim and cry to the whole world about how Ukraine has has been harmed by “evil” Russia, and call on the West to punish the “aggressor.” He is totally indifferent to the suffering of the civilians of Avdeevka (I’ve been there many times and even lived for a time in this small town of metallurgists), but he will use them to lend credibility to his complaints.
I’ve also concluded that the large losses that Ukraine is suffering and the fact of Poroshenko’s urgent return to Kiev speak in favor of this theory. Ukraine will soon once again turn to beg the world.
It appears like everything is going in this direction.
Last night, I talked with my friends in Donetsk. During our conversation, I could hear the explosions of artillery bombardments and Grad rocket fire. The Ukrainians were shooting right at the center of Donetsk. According to my friends, even 2014 didn’t see such intense fire. But the good news was that our responsive fire is just as powerful. 
In yesterday’s commentary for Fort Russ, I wrote that the casualty figures of the Ukrainian side that were contained in the intercepted confidential report by the Ukrainian General Staff for President Poroshenko, i..e, only 78 deaths, was probably an underestimation. It is most likely that the number of Ukrainians killed in the recent firefights is no less than 100. My friends close to military circles agreed with this assessment and added that the number is probably even higher. 
Here’s the information that I’ve just received from them. 
 
Information is constantly coming in from their associates in the cities of Ukrainian-occupied Donbass and Ukraine. All the morgues in the nearby towns of Donbass controlled by the Ukrainians (Konstantinovka, Kramatorsk, Bakhmut, etc.) are littered with the corpses of UAF soldiers. The bodies are being taken to the regional centers neighboring Donbass such as Dnepropetrovsk and others. The situation with wounded is similar. Hospitals are swamped and even civilian hospitals in neighboring Ukrainian cities are packed.
Back in autumn of last year, my friends from the Lugansk People’s Republic reported that the UAF had established field hospitals along the contact line. This explicitly suggests that Ukraine was preparing for an invasion of Donbass. 
According to my friends’ assessment, the Ukrainians’ losses are colossal. It is probable that the number of dead and wounded is rising to the hundreds. The political leadership and military command of Ukraine are incapable of managing to hide such huge losses like they did back in 2014. The truth will break out and Poroshenko and the Ukrainian General Staff will be faced with the question: for what sake were hundreds and hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers and officers killed?
My friends also believe that Poroshenko deliberately spoke of the “humanitarian catastrophe” in Avdeevka in order to bring up the ceasefire. In fact, the Ukrainians fear a victorious counter-offensive by the army of the Donetsk People’s Republic and a new cauldron for the Ukrainian Nazi army. 

 

The end of the Ukrainian Nazi state and the criminal Ukrainian army is near.